fbpx

Making a Will? Don't Forget Those Entitled to Look to You for Support

14th June 2021 By

When making your will, it is vital to remember those who have a right to look to you for financial support. As a High Court case showed, a failure to meet your duties to your dependants is highly likely to trigger a costly dispute – and ultimately judicial intervention – after you are gone.

The case concerned a businessman who died from an incurable lung condition at the age of just 41, leaving an estate valued at over £800,000 for probate. By a will made shortly before his death, he appointed his partner as sole executor of his estate and divided his assets between her and his parents – the beneficiaries.

He left nothing at all to his two sons by a marriage which had ended in acrimonious divorce about seven years prior to his death. His ex-wife’s response was to launch proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, seeking reasonable provision for his sons from his estate.

The beneficiaries responded that, some years before the man died, responsibility for providing for the boys had been assumed entirely by his ex-wife and her new husband. All direct contact between the man and his sons had ceased more than four years before he made his final will and it was asserted that there was no basis on which he could be expected to provide for them financially in his will.

Ruling on the matter, the Court found that only in the most exceptional cases could it be argued that a father’s duty to provide for his children had been entirely severed. The concept of a clean break was not generally applicable in respect of child maintenance. Although the boys’ stepfather treated them as children of his family and had taken on the burden of providing for them, their father’s responsibility to maintain them had not been extinguished.

The Court directed that the younger boy, who was still at school, should receive £117,962 from his father’s estate. The older boy, who had recently turned 18, received £68,022.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Restrictions on Property Use Can Be Limited by Human Lifespans

23rd July, 2021 By

Restrictions on the use to which properties can be put often lurk in old title deeds. As one case showed, however, some of them only endure as long as a human lifetime whilst others have no such shelf life and continue to have effect indefinitely. The case concerned a covenant in a 1961 conveyance that placed restrictions on the purchasers of a building plot on which a bungalow was later erected. It forbade them from constructing any other building on the plot, and from making alterations to the bungalow's external...

COVID-19 – Do Diving Asset Values Justify Unwinding Divorce Settlements?

20th July, 2021 By

The value of many assets has been devastated by COVID-19 – but is that a good enough reason for setting aside divorce settlements agreed before the pandemic struck? A family judge considered that issue in a guideline case. The case concerned a middle-aged couple whose 24-year marriage yielded three children before it ended in divorce. By far their biggest asset was a family business which, prior to the onset of the pandemic, was valued at about £3.5 million gross. The husband owned 51 per cent of the shares in the...

'Both' or 'Each'? – One Mistranscribed Word Triggers £6.4 Million Will Dispute

15th July, 2021 By

Will drafting is an exact science, requiring years of professional training, and a single mischosen or out-of-place word can have very serious consequences. Exactly that happened in a High Court case concerning the mistaken use of the word 'both' – rather than 'each' – in a millionaire businessman's will. The businessman, whose estate was worth £6.4 million, was the main shareholder in a company in which his wife and a close friend and colleague – the beneficiaries – held minority stakes. By his will, he conferred power on his executors...

Judge Declines to Authorise COVID-19 Vaccination of Dementia Sufferer

12th July, 2021 By

Whether or not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is a matter of personal choice. A family judge robustly made that point in declining to authorise vaccination of a care home resident suffering from acute dementia who had fiercely objected to the procedure. The 86-year-old woman believed that she was living in the late 1940s or early 1950s, that her long-deceased parents were still alive and that she worked at a cake factory where she had been employed in her youth. Every day at 4pm, when the factory siren once signalled...